percentage of people who are pro insider trading legalization

More specifically: Must the person leaking the information benefit financially? That riddle has bedeviled government prosecutors since a federal appeals court ruled in 2014 that the person providing the tip must receive a concrete reward for leaking information and the person receiving information must know about it. The case revolves around the question of what qualifies as insider trading. It’s a case that could bring the government’s sweeping crackdown on insider trading - led by federal prosecutors in New York, who have brought charges against more than 100 people since 2009 - to a screeching halt. United States, a case in which Bassam Salman, the brother-in-law in the scenario above, is asking the court to reconsider his conviction on charges of conspiracy and securities fraud. The court will hear arguments in Salman v. Today, the Supreme Court is trying to figure out the answer to those questions. Is their family relationship enough to justify convicting the brother-in-law for insider trading? Or did the banker need to receive something tangible - say, a fancy new car or a duffel bag full of cash - in return? There’s no evidence that the banker received compensation for leaking the information, other than possibly some warm fuzzies for helping a family member make a lot of money. The brother slips the tip to his brother-in-law, who uses the information to make more than $1 million from trading he did ahead of the deals. An investment banker passes along a tip to his brother about upcoming mergers involving his bank’s clients.

Percentage of people who are pro insider trading legalization